"complexion of an intrigue and party bu❝siness, and with having hearts so strange

ly constituted, as to seek for a political ❝and interested inducement in the dearest

66

and holiest relations of life. We never "suspected, we never said, that it was the "effect of intrigue or party; we always gave the motive and the merit to the parent and the son, and not to ministers or parties.---2. Had any one "indeed suspected that the lamented "breach, and the delay in putting an end to it, might have been the effect of intrigue and party, we should not have been inclined to think that suspicion al"together without foundation.-3. We "added, indeed, and we repeat, that if "the reconciliation be, as we firmly be"lieve, sincere it must have a political ten"dency. And have those who are so anxi

ous to have it believed that nothing political led to or can grow out of it, forgotten that the differences were merely political? To say then that the adjust66 ment of such differences can have no political tendency, is to maintain one of "the grossest absurdities.-4. Perhaps "the enemies of His Majesty's confidential "servants would be gratified could they "persuade one of the illustrious personages

to afford them the sanction of his name. "But we leave it to the country to decide "upon the sincerity of the joy which "those persons have expressed at the re"conciliation, who would make that illustrious personage the head of a party to oppose the men who are honoured with his father's countenance and confidence.

66

5. Who the violent partisans are, "who "advertise and bruit abroad so "loudly, the necessity ministers may "lie under of supporting themselves by ""some adventitious aid and body of as""sistance," we confess we know not; "but we suspect that those who cry out so loudly, are the persons who would be very glad if ministers would solicit their assistance. We have read in some old play, of a physician in distress, endea "vouring to persuade a very healthy man "that he was going rapidly into a con"sumption, in order that he might be cal"led in, Perhaps the persons we have alluded to are acting with similar views with respect to His Majesty's ministers.

46

6. What overtures have been made "and accepted or rejected, what success "has or has not, as yet, attended any ne"gociation; we know not. Strong in the "justice of their cause, and in the sup-. port of the country, we do not see that His Majesty's ministers need make

66

any overtures to the party which appears to take such uncommon pains "to have it believed that their support " is so desirable and so necessary."Taking these several parts in their numerical order, a very few words will suffice for each.

1. What is there so very curious in oer seeking for a political and interested inducement, where we were so plainly told that it existed? On the Monday the reconciliation took place; on the Wednesday the 'ministerial writers congratulated the public, they expressed their "fond hopes and high ex

pectations" of seeing "Lord Moira, Mr. "Sheridan, and Mr. Erskine giving their "powerful aid to the government (meaning "the ministry) in the great council of the "nation." Was it so very curious, then, for us to suppose, that, on one side, there were persons who wished to make a party business of the reconciliation ---2. So; now that the party intrigues have not socceeded, it is insinuated, that " the breach, "and the delay in putting an end to it, were "the effect of party intrigue." Not on the side of His Majesty and the ministers, of course; and, consequently, it must have been on the side of the Prince and his advisers, amongst, if not at the head of whom, be it observed, was that very nobleman, who has recently been so flattered by the ministerial writers, and to bring over whom, there is strong reason to believe, no ordinary exertions have been made. Observe, too, what an amiable light his Royal Highness is placed in by those, who, for reasons obvious enough, now, at last, wish to be numbered amongst those who entertain a due degree of respect for his person and character-3. What!"must" the reconciliation have a political tendency; or, "must" that reconciliation have been insincere? Cruel dilemma ! for, there is every reason to believe that it has not had, and will not have, a political tendency. Who has attempted to maintain that the reconciliation "can" have no political tendency? We have only maintained that it has not bad, and will not have such a tendency, in the sense in which the word tendency is here made use of. What signifies it whence the difference arose? All that we wanted was to see it done away, and the cause buried in oblivion: and the public will be at no loss to form a just judgment as to the conduct and character of those who are now endeavouring to revive it. Besides, according to this writer's mode of reasoning, the reconciliation must have been in itself political. The difference must have been discussed and settled; and, it is not at all difficult to perceive, that we are now wished to conclude, that the Prince has made con

cessions to the minister. Indecent insinuation! This is, however, the colour which the partizans of the minister are now endeavouring to give to the transaction; as evidently appears from the whole of their proceedings. In a caricature-shop, which has always been devoted to the minister, and which has sometimes been, to a certain degree, under the immediate control of some of his young friends;" in that shop, since Lord Moira's return to Scotland, there has been, and now is, exhibited, a picture intitled " THE RECONCILIATION," in which the Prince appears as the Prodigal Son, dressed in rags, and introduced to his father by Mr. Pitt on one side and Lord Moira on the other, with a quotation at the bottom, from the Gospel of St. Luke, descriptive of his sins, his miseries, and his repentance! This caricaturist formerly received a pension, which Mr. Addington, with great propriety, took from him; and which, I should hope, has not been renewed. I wish clearly to be understood here, as by no means insinuating that the minister, or any of his friends, have dictated, or encouraged, this scandalous outrage on the feelings of the Prince: unequivocally I declare, that I am convinced they have not; but, the outrage clearly shows what light the underlings of the ministry view the reconciliation in; for, be sure that this caricaturist never would have made this print, if he had not been fully persuaded that he was anticipating the wishes of his patrons.- -4 The enemies of "His Majesty's confidential servants" (for, it seems, the nation is still to be insulted by the use of this phrase, this convenient shield against ministerial responsibil ty), "the enemies of "His Majesty's confidential servants," if the ministers will insist upon making the opposition their "enemies;" those persons do not, and have not, for any of their proceedings, sought the sanction of His Royal Highness's name. It is easy to bring forward charges of this sort; but, when, where, how, has the name of the exalted personage in question been made use of for purposes such as are alluded to by this writer? But, that which follows, under this head, is something worse than a plain unvarnished falsehood. The public are called upon to mistrust the sincerity expressed, on account of the reconciliation, by those, "who would make the Prince the head of a i party to oppose the men who are honoured with "his father's conuienance and confidence!" Mark well the words, for they are of great account. There was no sincerity in our wishes to see the son of our sovereign reconciled to his royal father, because we might wish his Royal Highness still to keep aloof from Mr.

Pitt, and still to give his countenance to those who are endeavouring to prevent the evils which they think the unbridled power of that minister would produce! For, further than this, who has ever expressed a desire to see his Royal Highness the head of a party? And, thus far if he did not go, what would be the opinions of mankind as to his estima tion of that throne, of which he is destined to be the ornament; and also as to his love for that people, over whose honour, liberties, and happiness, it not only will be, but is already, his duty to watch with much more anxiety than any other subject of the realm? But, observe; it is not his being the head of a party that gives offence; it is the purpose of the party that constitutes the impropriety: "a party to oppose the mea "who are honoured with his father's coun. "tenance and confidence." Were it to support, instead of oppose these men, he might be the head of a party with all the propriety imaginable. It must be confessed, however, that his party would, in such case, be a very small one. He might be permitted to stand second or third after Mr. Canning, Mr. Huskisson, and George Rose! A table of small dimensions would suffice. Economy would enable him to face the effects of bank-restriction. And, as to grace, any one of Mr. Pitt's demure and "prudent young friends" would say it for him gratis. But, to return to the "con"fidential servants," to those, who thus nestle themselves into the ermin of royalty. Who are they? Why, they are persons, who have at their head a man, who, only six months ago was zealously labouring, in conjunction with those persons whom the Prince then honoured, and still honours, with his countenance, to oppose, and to force from their places, the kings "fidential servants"; yea the very men "who were honoured with his Ma"jesty's countenance and confidence;" which men were, too, those whom he him self had publicly eulogized, and had recom mended to the parliament and the nation! Now, behold! the principle is quite changed! Now, that this man is minister; now that he is the" confidential servant"; the Prince must countenance no one that opposes "his father's government"! Nay; the persons whom to oppose is now to be stigmatized as a breach of filial duty in the Prince, are, for the greater part, as to numbers, not only mere ministers, as the former ones were, but they are the same identical men, only rendered sacred by their as sociation with Mr. Pitt! For cool insolence, this preteusion is certainly u paralleled.

06 con.

VOL. VI. No. 23.]

Ye friends to truth, ye statesmen, who survey
The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay,
'Tis yours to judge how wide the limits stand
Between a splendid and a happy land.
Proud swells the tide with loads of freighted ore,
And shouting folly hails them from her shore.
Yet count our gains. This wealth is but a name,
That leaves our useful porducts still the same.
$65]

LETTER V.

TO THE RT. HON. WILLIAM PITT, ON THE CAUSES OF THE DECLINE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

DIGRESSION.
Corn-Bill.-Enclosures.-The Poor.

SIR, Amongst many disadvantages of conducting a discussion in Letters separated from each other, as to their time of appearance, there is one peculiar advantage, namely, the occasional opportunity, afforded the writer, of digressing into those parts of his subject, which derive additional interest from the circumstances of the day; an advantage of which I am now about to endeavour to avail myself.

After having, in the foregoing letter, signified my intention to show, that the primary cause of our national decline, and the consequent superiority of our enemy, was to be sought for in your Paper-Money system, I was proceeding first to describe the nature of that system, and then to trace it to its several consequences. But, the dearth of bread and the other necessaries of life having unhappily become a topic of much greater public interest than any other, this appears to be a favourable time to obtain a patient hearing upon those all-important subjects, the CornBill, New Enclosures, and The Poor.

If I meant to confine my observations to the corn-bill now in existence, I should think it necessary to dwell upon the particular circumstances under which that bill was passed; but, as such is not my intention, I shall, for the present at least, leave those circumstances aside, and enter at once upon the principle, on which, according to the report of the committee of the House of Commons, and also according to your speech thereon, the bill was introduced, supported, and, finally, passed into a law. In the report, which was recommitted, and which was, in its finished state, laid before the House of Commons on the 14th of June last, the Committee profess to have in view to introduce

[PRICE 10D.

[866

such a measure as shall contribute to the producing of such an ample supply of the dif ferent kinds of corn and grain as may be sufficient for our consumption. "This sup

66

ply," say they, "cannot be expected with"out a considerable surplus, in plentiful 66 years, above the demand of the home mar"ket; it, therefore, becomes desirable, that "the grower should have such a ready sale "for that surplus by exportation, and boun"ty if requisite, as may remove all appre"hension of his not being able to obtain, "from a glut of the commodity at the home "market, such a price for that surplus as "will afford him an equitable profit for his "labour, industry, and capital employed in "the production. It appears, then, to your "committee, that the surest mode by which

an ample supply can be expected, is to en"deavour to secure an uniform and reason. "able price to the growers." Do pray, Sir, read this last sentence over again, and say whether you understand what it means. The surest mode of expecting a supply! But, it is agreed, I believe, that your bright geniuses are exempted from the observance of all vulgar rules; otherwise it would be quite impossible to account for the tolerance which the House shewed with respect to this report. After a short and not very clear statement as to the operation of the corn-bill of 1791, the committee express their full confidence," that, by due encouragement "to the agriculture of the country, and by

bringing the Crown and Waste Lands into "cultivation, the product of the growth of "the corn in the United Kingdom will af"ford a regular and ample supply for its "consumption." What, in the naine of common sense! What do they mean by the product of the growth of corn? Do they mean the money that the crop produces at market? And that that money will purchase "a regular and ample supply for the con"sumption of the kingdoin?" What, then, do they mean?-But, let us come to the close of that part of this repoct, where, if any where, we are to look for the principle of the bill. "It appears to your committee

"that the price of corn from 1791 to the "harvest of 1803, has been very irregular, "but upon an average (increased in a great "degree by the years of scarcity), has, in "general, yielded a fair profit to the grower. "The casual high prices, however, have had "the effect of stimulating industry, and "bringing into cultivation large tracts of "waste land, which, combined with the two

last productive seasons, and other causes, "have occasioned such a depression in the "value of grain, as it is feared will greatly "tend to the discouragement of agriculture, "unless maintained by the support of Par"liament."Loath as I am to detain you, Sir, I cannot refrain from imploring your attention to the style of these law-givers. Their favourite figure of rhétorick seems to be tautology. Common men would have been content with either of the two phrases, "upon an average," or, "in general;" but those gentlemen take them both. Again; I, for in-tance, should have said, " unless main"tained, or rather, supported, by the power "of Parliament;" and not "maintained by "the support; that is, maintained by the maintenance of Parliament.

But, the style is a mere trifle when compared to the matter of this report. First we are told, that, in order always to have plenty of corn in the country, we must labour to raise taxes to pay the farmers for sending corn out of the country after every plentiful season! It would seem to require no com. mon portion of faith to swallow this doctrine; but, what then shall be said to the context? The premiums, the consequent re gular prices of corn, and the constant plenty, are represented as the inducements to agricultural industry; but, directly afterwards we are informed, that it is the casual high price which has had the effect of stimulating to that industry. Then, as to waste lands, we are told, that great tracts were brought into cultivation in consequence of the casual high prices; though, just before, we find the equalizing of prices represented as likely to cause still more waste lands to be cultivated. But, that which merits most attention, is, their canfession, that, without any aid from Parliament, "the price of 66 corn has been such as, upon an average to "yield a fair profit to the grower." Well, then, what did they want more? They want ed to equalize it. To equalize it? What, for the sake of the people; or of the farmer? Let us stop, however, and see your view of the subject. The design of these regulations, is, that scarcity shall be avoided; "and, for this purpose it is provided, that corn shall cos acquire such a price,

66

66

“ as will be a sufficient encouragement to promote its growth. We have lately seen "the quarter of wheat at 118 shillings, and "this arose from the deficiency; but, the "best means to avoid the deficit, is, never to "admit this department of agriculture to re"main without a sufficient compensation." Here, Sir, you repeated, in language more correct and intelligible, the substance of the report of the committee, passing over the circumstance of new enclosures, which, Į also, shall lay aside for the present.

In the conclusion of their report, the com mittee adopt, from Anderson, the argument from experience; and they evidently would, if they had not been short of time or some thing else, have stated, that, previous to the passing of the corn-bounty law in 168, corn was, upon an average, dear; that, from 1688 to 1755, during the operation of that law, corn was, upon an average, cheap; that, since 1755, when the law became permanently obstructed, corn has been dear, though there has been scarcely any exportation; that, therefore, exportation tends to render corn plenty at home, and that, of course, as a premium tends to encourage exportation, the granting of such premium is the way to render corn plenty, and to prevent scarcity and high price. This argument is, in my opinion, worth nothing at all. The effects, to which our attention is directed, are all to be fairly ascribed to causes, with which the corn-bounty was in no wise connected. The troubled state of the country during the for ty years preceding the revolution, the tranquil state between that time and the year 1755, during which period agriculture was the principal occupation of the country, and the depreciation of money was gradual and slow; the constantly encreasing relative en croachments, which, during the last half century, commerce has been making upon the agricultural population and labour, and, especially, the reluctance, which, within the last eight or ten years, has existed to grant long leases, a reluctance that has arisen from the rapid depreciation of money, now be come visible to the most ignorant and unobserving land-owner; these are causes quite sufficient to account for the high price of corn in the first and second period, and for the low price in the middle period, above mentioned, without having recourse to any supposed influence of the premiums for exporting corn; and, therefore, the measure, by which those premiums have been revived, must be tried entirely by the reason of the

case.

Stripping the report of the committee of its rhetorical embellishments, and taking

their meaning, as further explained by your. self, the argument whereon the corn bill was passed into a law, may be thus expressed. "That a bounty on the exportation of corn greatly promotes agriculture; that it en66 courages the farmer to raise greater quan"tities of corn than, he otherwise would "raise; that this produces a general plenty "which prevents prices from ever rising "high; that thus corn is rendered cheaper

upon the abole, than when its price is al"lowed at times to sink very low, while at "times again it must rise as disproportion"ately high" To make good this argument, the advocates of the bounty inform us, that a market for every commodity must always exist, otherwise that commodity will not be provided. To this I answer, that there always does exist a market for corn, and quite a sufficient one too, in the home consumption. But, the reply is, that there should be a market open beside the home market; otherwise the farmers, from the fear of overstocking that market, will always keep it scantily supplied. Good God! that the

tillers of the land should draw from that land less than they are able to draw from it! that they should forbear thus from any consideration would be wonderful enough; but, that their forbearance should arise from a fear of rendering corn low-priced, when they well know that the price of every other thing is regulated by that of corn, would be truly astonishing. From a country well settled and governed no corn ought ever to be exported; because, it is a proposition firmly established, and universally admitted, that the multiplication of the human species is always in due proportion to the means of subsistence; nor will it be denied, that the tendency of the human species to multiply is much greater than the rapidity with which it is possible to increase the produce of the earth for their maintenance. Population is frequently checked by the deficiencies of agriculture, but agriculture never can, except from very singular circumstances, be checked by the deficiencies of population; or, in other words, by the want of a demand for corn,

It follows, then, Sir, from this imporant fact, which seems to have wholly escaped you and the other advocates for the cornbounty, that an ample market, and full encouragement, are always afforded to the farmer, without the aid of any trading regulation whatever; and, therefore, as far as I can discover, all that can, after this, be said, in defence of the bounty, is, that, though the principle of population aflords. sufficient encouragement to the raising of

corn, the bounty affords additional encou ragement. In answer to this, every one would, without hesitation, say, that there can be no use in over-doing a good thing. Why, if a sufficient market is provided for corn, would you interfere to disturb the natural order of things? In this general presumption against the bounty there is no lit tle weight; but, if any man will examine the particular circumstances of the case, with only a moderate degree of attention, he will find that the advocates for the bounty have spoken completely without thought, in ascribing to the bounty the power of increasing the production of corn.

The intention of the bounty is to prevent the price of corn from ever falling so low as otherwise it would often natura'ly do. If this purpose be not answered, the law fails of its object. If it be answered, it will either raise the average price of corn, or it will not. The advocates of the bounty, and yourself amongst the rest, sometimes express yourselves as if you thought it would not; for you are not very consistent with yourselves on this point, sometimes en leavouring to recommend your doctrine by the po pular promise of average cheapness; though at other times it suits your purposes to exhibit the opposite face of the subject. But, of this we may rest perfectly satisfied, that, if the bounty does not raise the average price of corn, it is impossible it can encourage the production; and, on the other hand, if it lowers the average price of corn, it must of necessity, discourage the production. These are propositions which you will, surely, agree to. You will admit, that the bounty raises to a certain degree the average price of corn. This high price, you say, would so encourage the raising of corn, that we should have a considerable quantity to export, which would bring us a good deal of money in all good years, and would, by inducing the farmers to raise larger quantities upon an average every year than they now do, by sowing more every year than they now do, save us from scarcity in all bad years. These, then, are the advantages, which you set against a permanent high price of provisions, and a permanent check to population.

But, let us consider how far these effects can be produced by the bounty. And, here, Sir, suffer me to call your attention to one very obvious principle; to wit, that common competition, which regulates every trade, and of which it is truly astonishing that you should appear so unable to perceive the effects. This bigh price of corn necessarily raises the profits of farming stock and labour